Legal Opinion
In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 15, 2005No. 21 MC 92(SAS)PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*189 OPINION AND ORDER
SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.
I. BACKGROUND
The allegations in these consolidated cases are comprehensively described in my Opinion dated February 19, 2003.1 Familiarity with that Opinion is assumed. In short, plaintiffs allege that defendants fraudulently inflated the share prices of 310 technology stocks during and after their initial public offerings (“IPOs”) through an elaborate scheme characterized by tie-in agreements, undisclosed compensation and analyst conflicts. According to plaintiffs, several investment banks (the “Underwriters”) required substantial investors…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, Manhattan-Ward, Incorporated v. Grinnell Corporation, 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc. v. Grinnell CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. RoperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Ohio Public Employees Retirement System v. General Reinsurance Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
- LaSala v. Needham & Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- In Re Initial Public Offering Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- In Re Telik, Inc. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2009
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.